However the issue of local “pre-emption” ends up being resolved at the Capitol, the tone of the discussion took a wrong turn last week.

At a time for measured words, the business community again was targeted for undue criticism in comments about the proposal that would block local governments from enacting their own labor ordinances. Included are sick- and safe-time measures nearing implementation in both St. Paul and Minneapolis, as well as the minimum-wage and scheduling mandates advocates are advancing.

Gov. Mark Dayton promised to veto the proposal, and said at a news conference that pre-emption is “just the business community coming in and trying to strip away, and keep people from improving the quality of their lives.”

It’s a familiar refrain, and an unfortunate one. The St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce and other business leaders heard such rhetoric throughout the process here that left us with an ordinance requiring all employers to give workers paid leave for their own health and safety needs or those of family members. It’s one thing to disagree about policy, nothing wrong with that. It’s another to reduce a complicated issue to shallow accusations.

Instead of the barbs, the governor, legislators, advocates — all of us — will be better served by a discussion that keeps its focus on jobs, who creates them and the conditions that produce more good ones.

“Employers are looking for uniform standards precisely so that they can focus on offering great products and services and creating economic opportunities for all,” Cam Winton of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce told us. “When employers can focus on their business, employees can share in that success.”

In St. Paul, we’ve argued not against good intentions and the idea of paid sick time, but rather against the concept of city council members writing checks that somebody else has to cover. They, in effect, granted a multi-million-dollar benefit to workers in St. Paul for which the city incurs no direct cost.

We note, however, that Dayton’s comments at a news conference left a welcome opening for negotiation.

The governor said Republicans, who have pushed hard for the pre-emption measure, could come to him and offer to give up a series of other things he opposes in exchange for him signing the labor bill, the Pioneer Press’ Rachel E. Stassen-Berger reported.

“I can’t promise that that’s not an agreement I will have to reach,” she quoted Dayton saying. “I’m not going to predict the outcome of that exchange.”

Business advocates, who have supported the pre-emption measure, hold out hope for its eventual signing.

“Our member businesses need uniform labor standards across the state, especially those who have locations in more than one city. A patchwork of labor policies around the state is harmful to businesses — the same businesses who employ so many Minnesotans in good jobs,” wrote Mindee Kastelic, interim president and CEO of the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, in an email.

The state chamber’s Winton emphasizes that as they prepare for compliance with sick-time measures in St. Paul and Minneapolis this summer, employers will be spending money on computer time-tracking systems and human resources attorneys, diverting dollars that could be used to benefit workers, including raises, bonuses, training and innovation.

The “patchwork” that business will be forced to navigate includes differing ordinances in St. Paul and Minneapolis. Then, in addition, Winton said, “each city has its own enabling rules, its own detailed interpretation of its ordinance.”

The misguided mandates add up to an undue burden that falls heaviest on businesses with fewer resources. We have argued on these pages that the measures ultimately will hurt the people supporters aim to help. Unintended consequences include businesses that will close or relocate — affecting the job growth so vital to stable families and communities — because it is simply easier to do business elsewhere.

As you comment, please be respectful of other commenters and other viewpoints. Our goal with article comments is to provide a space for civil, informative and constructive conversations. We reserve the right to remove any comment we deem to be defamatory, rude, insulting to others, hateful, off-topic or reckless to the community. See our full terms of use here.

More in Editorials

It's been a year since President Donald Trump made good on a campaign pledge to pull out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. The administration's strategy: Turn the screws on Tehran with sanctions to compel Iranian leaders to work on a broader agreement that also tackles Iran's pursuit of ballistic missiles and support of terrorism. Since then, Europe has...

President Donald Trump, self-declared "Tariff Man," lived up to his billing and wielded his favorite weapon yet again ahead of crucial trade talks with China last week. Enough is enough. The U.S. needs to bring these negotiations to a close before more damage is done. U.S. officials say Trump's threat to raise tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods...

In recent months, the world has slowly awakened to the extraordinary campaign of cultural genocide China is conducting against Muslims in its western Xinjiang region. As many as 1 million people have been confined to concentration camps where they are forced to renounce their religious practices and memorize the Beijing regime's propaganda. That gross offense against human rights must be...

On his latest trip to New York, Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif made the usual rounds of think tanks and TV studios, and delivered the now-familiar mix of scare and snark. Amid an escalating conflict over sanctions with the U.S., about the only new proposal he managed to air was an exchange of prisoners. The Trump administration should dismiss that...

The U.S. economy is growing at such a fast clip and the unemployment rate is so low that ... there must be something terribly wrong. Does that make sense? No, but the healthy state of the country seems to be too much for some economists, talking heads and others in the chattering class. They struggle to find something nice to...

If there's one thing the huge (and growing) field of Democratic presidential aspirants largely agrees on, it's that the U.S. ought to re-enter the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Last week, Pete Buttigieg and Beto O'Rourke became the latest to join the chorus. Unfortunately, going down this path would be a big mistake — and a missed opportunity. Known as...